Is'nt it the same as arming them to continue the war,so Clinton is for the war. She voted for the use of force but not to go to war alone, without the permission of the UN. Never the less she is not cutting funds for the war but buying the war for the democrats, why?
2007-02-02 03:56:53 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
only in your little world does that make any sense, i hope your happy there.
2007-02-02 04:01:07 · answer #1 · answered by paul 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So much for the "not supporting the war but supporting the troops" clap-trap crying of some anti-war individuals.
What do you want the troops to do that are already in Iraq?
You appear to be against body armor - whats next refusing to give them any more bullets?
That will make the war end sooner as they will be much easier targets - just like sitting ducks for snipers and terrorists.
Maybe you could just cut off their food and water supplies and force them to come home or starve? Now that is an idealistic dream to live for. ~~while most may support the troops, one nut can ruin the argument of the many~~
2007-02-02 04:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by Akkita 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the Clintons are actually CONSERVATIVE democrats, not liberal ones. And this probably why even many democrats hate Hilllary.
Of course, even a person who disagrees with the "police action" over in Iraq (no war was actually declared, mind you) can't disagree with our young men and women being equipped with a life-saving device. What I see from anti-war protestors is, "Support our troops...bring them home alive", and building monuments to draw attention to those who have died over there (such as one flag for every troop member who has died). Its only the Cool Aid drinkers who keep up the myth that anti-war protestors are actually spitting on our troops.
2007-02-02 04:06:16 · answer #3 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The election remains quite some distance off, yet i could say that Hillary is the front runner good now and that i do no longer think of there are a number of human beings that could project her. If the vote have been on the instant, she could have mine.
2016-11-24 19:16:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because you don't believe in a war doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of the troops out there fighting it.
2007-02-02 04:04:56 · answer #5 · answered by Robert 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because while they are there risking their lives they should have the best protective gear and equipment available. It's called supporting the Troops.
2007-02-02 04:03:46 · answer #6 · answered by Sun Spot 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She knows like i belive that this war that Bush has started will never be over it will just shift around she wants the best protection possible. it is unrealistic but there it is. Hey it was now or later Democrates or Repblicans we will be there as long as we support Isreal we will be there
2007-02-02 04:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by bone g 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, Senator Clinton is a moderate, and a realist. Sure we got into the war based on lies, but since we are there we might as well actually protect our soldiers.
2007-02-02 04:03:02 · answer #8 · answered by vertical732 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Stop bullets from entering their body - do you think?
2007-02-02 04:18:13 · answer #9 · answered by Lou 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋